Re: [Mipshop] Review of Transient Binding Spec

["Ahmad Muhanna" <amuhanna at nortel.com>]

Hi Vijay,
Sorry! as you said should stick with the technical discussion.

Please see inline.

Regards,
Ahmad
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:vijay at wichorus.com] 
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 4:16 PM
> To: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10); Koodli, Rajeev; mipshop at ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-mipshop-transient-bce-pmipv6 at tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Review of Transient Binding Spec
> 
> Hi Ahmad,
> 
> Lets keep the discussion just technical please. I am sure 
> there is a better way to respond than just saying "you don't 
> understand" or you need to read".
> 
> Lets try to come up with some text that says that the problem 
> can be solved with implementation specific mechanisms at the 
> LMA 
[Ahmad]
There are two folds to this problem, uplink traffic coming from pMAG as
I confirmed on your latest email can be addressed via a static
configuration. Receiving uplink traffic from the nMAG before a PBU can
not be addressed via a static configuration. So some text to accurately
reflect both cases is fine with us, I believe.

> and buffering at the nMAG when the L2 is not setup. But 
> this document proposes a mechanism that addresses the problem better.
> 
> Vijay
> 
> 
> On 8/17/09 4:35 AM, "Ahmad Muhanna" wrote:
>